On January 27th this year I submitted an Official Information Act request to the Ministry of Transport for any papers, briefing or other documents they held or had prepared since 1 March 2010 on the following matters:

  • The Auckland CBD Rail Link project
  • The Auckland Rail Electrification project
  • The Puhoi-Wellsford road of national significance
  • The Auckland integrated ticketing project

After much to-ing and fro-ing over the scope of the request, as the MoT were keen to narrow it down a bit so that it didn’t end up being thousands of documents, the request was narrowed to “all advice and briefings to the Minister of Transport since 1 March 2010 on the four topics listed above. After that I waited, as the timelines for the OIA request were first extended, and then the day they were supposed to be provided to me (even with the OIA extension) came and went (March 18th). A week after that date I contacted Barry Kidd – the general manager for roads and rail – to enquire what on earth was going on.

A few days later I was contacted by another staff member to say the final touches were being put on the response – and then finally, today, I received the information. By my calculations that’s around 14 working days overdue, meaning that the response has taken around two and a half times as long as it really should have (20 working days). Considering the extraordinarily long delay in getting this response, I figured that they’d probably be sending me boxes of information.

But I was wrong, in fact most of what I asked for has been withheld. Here’s a copy of the letter I got in reply. It notes the documents that have been released to me in full:

Most of this is fairly boring stuff – advice for speeches or other papers that I have already seen in the past. There’s also a fairly lengthy list of documents that were released in part, usually with the most interesting bits withheld: Once again there are a few interesting things in here – and I’m willing to scan in, email or write future blog posts on any of these documents that people think might be particularly interesting. A lot of these released documents has been withheld though, frustratingly. It’s also a bit strange that the Minister has released no advice whatsoever on the Puhoi-Wellsford Road: maybe because that’s an NZTA project the Ministry of Transport is excluded from discussions on it?

Annoyingly, it’s the third list that seems the longest – the list of documents completely withheld from release:

In addition to these documents, a whole mass of weekly updates from the Ministry have also been fully withheld.

Obviously some documents should be withheld, and I see a few of those outlined above such as details on foreign exchange hedging. But it seems that MoT have gone completely over the top in withholding so much information. Surely there is a strong public interest in finding out about the MoT’s analysis of “Key Facts” of the CBD Rail Tunnel, or details on the direction of the next Government Policy Statement for transport funding. Furthermore, many of the MoT’s weekly transport briefings surely contain parts that could have been released. It just seems that, despite the masses of time they had to process the OIA request, in the end they’ve been lazy and unnecessarily secretive.

I might need to work out how to complain to the Office of the Ombudsman.

Share this

12 comments

  1. The ‘Key Facts’ from MoT is a document that came under the scope of my request to Joyce late last year, but was withheld due to ‘protecting confidentiality of advice from officials’. I referred this to the Ombudsmen and received a response on February 15 saying the Ombudsmen was writing to Steven Joyce, and that an investigator would meet with relevant officials. However I have heard nothing further!
    However this posting has reminded me and I am about to write enquire asking the progress of the investigation.

    I’m guessing that this document is being withheld for political reason as guess it could be glowing, thus undermining the govt strategy on this. I’ll keep you updated if I hear anything further.

    1. Yeah keep us posted on that one Luke. I had thought the Ombudsman office worked at glacial pace but it sounds like you’re getting some good progress.

      I’m probably going to give MoT one more chance to reconsider withholding so many documents (also reminding them of how late their response was) before taking it to the Ombudsman.

  2. Yeah I think you really do need to make a complaint about this as some of that stuff seems pretty stupid. In the last batch of documents that have been completely withheld there are some that would surely be ok like the Waitakere Rail Stabling site visit. One pretty interesting one is the meeting with the Chinese Vice President, this would be interesting as it has long been rumoured that the Chinese will win the contract for the EMU’s after Kiwirail amended the short list adding a number of Chinese companies.

  3. Politics. They’re trying to bore you into going away. Just makes it more interesting doesn’t it? What are they so ashamed of revealing? Partiality?

  4. If you post the OIA grounds (or reasons) for withholding the information, then some who have experience with obtaining transport information from government agencies could possibly help.

    In my experience, complaints to the Ombudsman do take a long time witht he fastest being about 3 months and I have just had a decision (going my way) after two years.

    What do you think ?

    1. Have a look at the attached letter, the reasons are in there although they are just given as a general “these are all the possible reasons for this groups of documents” rather than stating the individual reasons for each document

  5. so they met with the Vice President on the 9th of June, 2010. And they re-opened the tender for EMUs (without giving any real reason for why) on the 3rd of September.

    Then in December Kiwirail announced that a Chinese company (CNR) was the preferred tenderer for another big Kiwirial contract – to supply 300 flat deck wagons for freight). What odds that the EMU contract will also go to a Chinese company?

    You will never get hold of that document Josh I suspect…

    Oh for a Nicky Hager, hollow men style leaker!

  6. Weird. The article in the Otago Daily Times says “Hillside Workshops were overlooked last year for the $500 million contract to build 38 three-car electric trains for the Auckland railway network. The contract was given to China’s CNR Corporation.”

    But I can’t see any official press release on Kiwirail’s website about it. Maybe the journalist got confused by the two different contracts? Or maybe they forgot what information they had been given was confidential and what wasn’t?

  7. Don’t expect a fast answer after complaining to the Ombudsman. Those of us who have tried to go down this path because of the increasing secrecy and refusal to hand over documents find the office is slow because it is way overwhelmed with increases in complaints. The office dealt with over 10,000 requests last year and by year’s end 1700 still had not been answered. Don’t be surprised if we soon get legislation restricting complaints to the office in the guise of cutting out wasteful complaints in the Government era of budget cuts when it’s really because people are discussing this avenue and using it because of the internet-era right to know what they should have the right to know.

  8. received this response in return to my enquires about where my complaint to Ombudsmen is up to:

    “Ombudsman David McGee has received a copy of the Key Facts paper from the Minister. I am meeting with officials from the Minister’s office and the Ministry next week to discuss the reasons they consider section 9(2)(f)(iv) applies to the withheld document. Mr McGee will then hopefully be in a position to form a provisional view on your complaint.

    An Ombudsman is required to give a party against which the Ombudsman is considering forming an adverse opinion the opportunity to comment on that opinion prior to making a final decision on a complaint. The process is for an Ombudsman to form a provisional view as to whether the decision to withhold the information under the OIA was justifiable, and advise the party that the view finds against. An Ombudsman will normally give that party 20 working days to comment on the view, prior to forming a final opinion on a complaint.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *